http://www.nytimes.com/20...gazine/25desire-t.html?em

What these studies suggest is that most males are attracted to specific categories of stimuli while most females are attracted to suggestive stimuli in general.

Surprisingly, the males were quite honest about it while the females weighted their answers in the direction of their sexual identities. Maybe the joke about homophobes being in the closet isn't as true as it sounds, or at least is not often true of males, to whom is usually refers, and more often true of females. What this suggests to me is that the conflicting reports reflect a culture obsessed with sexual category, and really it is obsessed with category in general; sexual, racial, philosophical, and to the detriment of science, scientific, medical, educational, and occupational. These female subjects have identified themselves by a system of categories, pushed by the culture, that are unrelated to themselves.

This prompts the question of whether the males are truly categorical, or if the measurements used in the experiment simply measure their conscious response?

They experimented again with a group of transwomen and got categorical results. While this is reported as support of innate nature, I call it inconclusive. Transgender is such a diverse non-category that I could argue that it supports a nurture explanation since what they had in common was a male upbringing. And it could as easily support the idea that the experiment is finding physical rather than psychological data, because they are psysically male, and even if post-op may share whatever trait causes the reports to agree. In fact if any of them are truly psychologically female it supports that strongly.

I do commend the researchers' quotes about nature and nurture, because they are utterly interrelated and almost no experiment can dismiss either.